Friday, October 31, 2014

Democrats and Republicans believe the other side steals votes. Accusations are flying in all directions. The Democrats are desperate. Early signs already point towards a GOP improvement in Congress in terms of numbers, and a Senate that will belong to the Republicans starting next year.

According to the Associated Press, the Republicans already have a huge lead in Colorado's early voting. The AP points out that it is common for the GOP to jump out ahead early, but as the vote comes in, normally their leads diminish. However, in Colorado, the early leads are not normally as large as we are seeing right now.

The reality among Democrats may be that they have realized they can't win without voter fraud. Arguments already exist that the Democrats did not actually win the presidential election in 2012, and it took fraud to get the very unpopular Barack Obama back into the White House. As it stands now, the Republicans are looking like they may take back control of the United States Senate. The GOP, if the vote turns out as polls indicate, would gain a very narrow majority, but a majority indeed.

As voting machines in Maryland and Illinois automatically change Republican votes to Democrat votes, Democrats call requiring voters to show identification "voter suppression." Last night I was talking to a Republican voter who told me during the last election, when they showed up to vote, someone had already voted for him, and signed his name. He was told he could provide a provisional ballot, but it would probably not matter. So, while people's votes are being stolen without identification being allowed because Democrats claim it is voter suppression, those same Democrats were silent when the New Black Panthers were intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia in 2008. Attorney General Eric Holder, despite all of the evidence, and the incredibly ridiculously illegal nature of what the New Black Panthers did, then dropped the charges against them.

Now, through a report performed by al Jazeera America, the Democrats are claiming the Republicans are committing voter fraud by purging voter rolls of duplicate voters. Leftist writers are claiming the Republicans in charge of purging the rolls are targeting black, Hispanic and Asian voters, claiming the voter roll purges are purely racist in nature. Remember, the argument being used by Democrats against voter ID laws is the race card, as well, despite the obvious reality that requiring ID to prove the person voting is the person on the list will help in cutting down on fraud.

New York News and Politics has gone so far as to equate voter ID laws with poll taxes, which were taxes required in some States at the polls, designed to target minority voters too poor to pay the tax, and a practice outlawed in every State by the 24th Amendment.

My first question regarding the Left's argument that some people are so poor they are unable to get identification has always confused me. If some people are so poor they can't secure ID, then how is it they are able to cash their welfare checks?

Democrats are willing to do anything they can to gain an upper hand in elections, like projecting their fraudulent activities upon the GOP, pandering to minority groups, and doing what they can to allow people who should not be voting to do so regardless of the laws.

The liberal left believes the way to ensure they continue to keep some semblance of control, and perhaps take control of the United States Government in perpetuity, is through the Hispanic vote. So, they are doing all they can to secure that vote. A part of the strategy for the Democrats is to get as many Hispanics in Democrat races as they can, and in fact a large number of these candidates are Hispanic women. The idea is to increase voter turnout for the Democrats, in both the Hispanic vote, and the female vote.

But how much of that Hispanic vote is by illegal aliens? Are the Democrats courting those that cannot legally vote?

La Raza, a Marxist Hispanic organization, who is pro-amnesty, in an effort to enable illegal voters to get around Voter ID laws, is putting out the message to these potential illegal voters on where to go where identification is not required. They are encouraging illegal aliens to vote, and are telling them where to go to ensure they can pull off their illegal voting without getting caught.

All of this after in Colorado, James O'Keefe caught Democrats on camera claiming cities in Colorado are great for voter fraud, largely because of their vote-by-mail system. And everyone gets a vote by mail ballot, whether they requested one, or not, and whether they still live in Colorado, or not. Anyone can vote, just sign the name on the mail-in-ballot, even if it is not your name. Use ballots that aren't yours. They call it "Ballot Harvesting." Reality calls it "illegal," and "voter fraud."

The Colorado voter fraud problem is the story the Democrats have been calling a false story. They want to you to discount voter fraud, to shrug your shoulders, and say in unison with the liberal left liars, "There goes them racist Republicans, again."

A Mexican judge has freed jailed U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi, his family said late Friday.

Tahmooressi, 26, who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, has been held since March 31, when he said he mistakenly crossed into Mexico with three legally-purchased and registered guns in his truck.

A court-appointed psychiatrist confirmed that Tahmooressi has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Family spokesman Jonathan Franks said the judge released him without making a determination on the charge against him.

The family issued the following statement: "It is with an overwhelming and humbling feeling of relief that we confirm that Andrew was released today after spending 214 days in a Mexican Jail."

Over/under on the amount of time that will pass until Sergeant Tahmooressi gets a Rose Garden "welcome home"/ hero's welcome ceremony like "Sergeant" Bergdahl did: somewhere between the age of Odin, never, and the end of Barack Obama's presidency (in escalating order).

The Big, Bad, Lone Wolf dodge; The Obamastapo visits Nashville; Is the Washington press corps covering up another Obama Regime fiasco? Yes! They! Are! Could the GOP win up to 55 Senate seats? No! They! Can't!
Prepare for Scott Walker 2016....if he wins re-election in Wisconsin
(and if the election were today, he wouldn't); and a story to be named
later.

Consider this a sneak preview of my final Senate race picks at midnight Tuesday:

Experts are predicting that it could be days or even months before voters know which party will take control of the Senate, should one or two key races be forced into a runoff or if results are so close they require a recount.

Agreed.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com said that in Georgia and Louisiana the probability is high that a victory will not be called on Election Night if any of the candidates fail to get the required 50% support needed to claim victory.

"A runoff in Georgia remains more likely than not. Our model gives [Republican David] Perdue about a 30% chance of winning outright on November 4th, while [Democrat Michelle] Nunn is down to only about a 10% chance of doing so. The rest of the time, the race will be runoff-bound," said the former New York Times statistician.

Georgia's runoff would take place on January 6th, three days after the opening of the 114th Congress.

Agreed

"Louisiana tops the list. Its November 4th 'jungle primary'....

Nothing racist about that nickname, is there?

....ballot includes eight candidates; the top two will advance to a December 6th runoff if none wins a majority on November 4th."

Silver's model currently predicts that Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu will get 45% or 46% of the vote, while Republican Bill Cassidy is on track to get 41% or 42%.

"A runoff is very likely," he said.

Agreed.

Meanwhile, in Alaska, where the polls close at 1:00 a.m. Eastern time, there is a chance that officials may not be able to call the race if the candidates come within a few points of each other.

"Our assumption is that either [incumbent Democratic Senator Mark] Begich or [GOP challenger Dan] Sullivan would have to win by at least five percentage points for Alaska to be declared in time for the evening news on November 5th," Silver writes.

"Our model says there's about a 30% chance of that, and a 70% chance that things will take at least a little longer."

Agreed.

Larry Sabato predicts an avalanche of photo-finishes and accompanying recounts, which is to say that he might as well declare that the Democrats are going to retain majority control of the Senate, because Democrats haven't lost a recount anywhere, in any race, at any level, since the 2000 presidential election.

I also happen to agree with that assessment.

Though I differ with Mr. Sabato on the "chaos" it will create in Washington, D.C., because Washington, D.C. has been in chaos for going on six years, so it's something to which We, The People should have become comfortably acclimated a very long time ago.

With the prospect of a Republican takeover of the Senate, Democrats are making a final pitch to Latino voters, asserting President Obama has existing legal authority to take executive action on immigration.

In an op-ed published Thursday on Univision.com, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representatives Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois-4 and Zoe Lofgren of California-19 make the case that "Congress and the Constitution give presidents broad authority to take executive action on immigration policy" and that the authority has been used by past presidents."

In addition to taking steps to make our immigration enforcement efforts more humane, there are dozens of reforms that the President can adopt. Two that could have the greatest impact involve the expanded use of his deferred action and 'parole' authorities," wrote the Democratic House members in a message posted in English and Spanish.

Which, of course, is why there have been endless, stubborn congressional "gang" efforts to cram illegal immigration amnesty down the throats of an American public that vehemently opposes it be never less than a two to one margin.

Article I, Section 1, again:

ALL legislative Powers herein [i.e. in the U.S. Constitution] granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The only saving grace may be how few Univision.com readers may actually be literate.

The reason for this tyrannical twaddle? Simple polling logic:

Noting President Obama's pledge to take executive action on immigration after the elections, the Democrats say they "look forward to the President’s bold and meaningful action to improve the lives of Americans and immigrants alike and advance the interests of our nation."

The Univision message came a day after Pew Research reported that Latino support for Democrats has fallen, although they continue to have a healthy advantage over Republicans.

The nationwide survey of adults found that Latino registered voters are less supportive of the Democratic Party than in previous election cycles. In 2012, 70% of Hispanic voters said they identify with the Democratic Party, compared to today when 63% said they lean Democrat.

In addition, 50% of respondents said Democrats were more concerned about Latino interests than Republicans, which is down from 61% in 2012.

Frantic pandering to Hispanics that O will import all of Latin American later this month, and frantic pandering to black Americans that if they don't get out and vote Democrat early and often, white cops will shoot all their children like the death angel sweeping through Egypt on the first Passover. You could almost get the idea that Democrats think they're about to get wiped out....

"Until someone in this locker actually says something negative [about Wilson], we just take that with a grain of salt," Sherman said. "Anyone can make up anything and say a source said it. I don't think anybody on this team feels that way. We support our quarterback. He fights for us every game."

"My reaction [to the Wilson story] is that it's an insult to our race," Thomas said. "And Russell is the ultimate competitor. He always works as hard as anyone, and he handles himself with poise. He represents our team and our organization very well. I don't think there's any problem with him in our locker room at all."

Apparently the unnamed "Seahawks players" who spoke to Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman were all Percy Harvin, and he's been exiled to the New York Jets.

Has everybody so quickly forgotten that the last thing you want to do to the Champs is put that chip back on their shoulder? Maybe it's the rest of the NFL that isn't black and blue enough.

Is it because the dollar still has value left? Double-ply bathroom tissue versus the single-ply of pretty much every other Western currency at this point, which is the only factor generating the illusion of the dollar's purported "strength"?

"The fact that it's ending QE3 despite still-low inflation and still-high, though declining, unemployment, signals that the Fed is eager to return to normalcy," he writes.

He thinks "still-low inflation" is a bad thing, folks. Which tells me he doesn't do his own grocery shopping or pay his own electricity bill.

And pal, unemployment is many things, but it isn't "declining" anywhere outside Red Barry's etch-o-sketch.

"The Fed, in short, looks much more hawkish. And that's not good, because, as Chicago Fed President Charles Evans explains, the 'biggest risk' to the economy right now is that the Fed raises rates too soon."

Biggest risk to the Democrat Party, maybe. That way the electorate would see how crummy the Obamaconomy really is by throwing Wall Street into the same sinking ship out of which Main Street has been frantically bailing seawater for the past six years. The solution of Messrs. O'Brien and Evans to which would evidently be to drill more holes in the bottom of the ship to allow the water to run out on its own.

QE is no magic bullet, but it's quite effective, O'Brien says. "Especially at convincing markets that the Fed won't raise rates for a while, which is all it should be saying right now, because the only thing worse than having to do QE is having to do QE again."

Three times isn't enough, Matt? Have you applied this logic to your sex life?

In other words, he adds, the Fed "should do everything it can to make sure the economy lifts off from its zero interest rate trap before it pulls anything back."

Pennsylvania State Police, ending a seven-week manhunt, have captured a man accused of ambushing two troopers, leaving one dead and another seriously injured. Eric Frein, 31, was taken into custody Thursday, state police said. Frein was found near an abandoned air strip in Tannersville, Pennsylvania, where they received a report of a man going in and out of an empty hangar. U.S. Marshals in the area caught Frein when they witnessed him trying to go back into the hangar. Frein was arrested without incident, and authorities later found a sniper rifle and pistol stashed nearby. Frein was then transported to the Blooming Grove barracks to be booked and await arraignment - the same police station where he allegedly shot dead a state trooper on September 12.Pictures of Frein in the back of a police cruiser show him nursing a bleeding wound to the bridge of his nose. It's unclear how he sustained the injury. And after 48 days on the run, Frein was remarkably clean shaven. At a press conference held Thursday night, officials broke down the events leading up to Frein's capture. They said a group of U.S. Marshals was searching the area near the abandoned Birchwood Resort in Tannersville, about 35 miles southwest from the scene of the shooting last month. Around 6pm, the group observed Frein walking towards the airport hangar in the middle of the field and ordered him to stop.

What we know for sure is that the Regime is suffering from an acute shortage of chicken salad at the moment:

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week sent a blunt memo to National Security Advisor Susan Rice criticizing the administration's strategy in Syria.

And she'll be dutifully lying about it on every talking head program this Sunday morning, right on schedule.

According to the New York Times, Hagel personally wrote a two-page detailed analysis in which he asserted that the policy outlined by President Barack Obama was in danger of failing because it does not outline how the United States will manage its approach to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

One senior official told CNN that he was "expressing concern about overall Syria strategy" and that the main message of the memo was "we need to have a sharper view of what to do about the Assad regime."

So let me see if I've got this straight: A year ago The One wanted to pretend to "do something" about Boy Assad that would have benefited ISIS, but backed down because even such martial pretense would have triggered a genuine war with Syria, and probably Iran and Russia as well; and now The One is pretending to "do something" about ISIS, including in Syrian airspace, that is benefitting Boy Assad, and Commissar Hagel is being a Republican chickenshit by pointing out the baying irony.

Good thing he did so in a "private memo," huh? Wouldn't want that to get out to the public, would they?

So what chickenshit strategy is Hagel recommending?:

The official did not give further details about Hagel's views but did not disagree with the idea that the U.S. has much to lose in its war against the Islamic State (ISIS) if it fails to address that element of the strategy.

Hagel has so far refrained from making his concerns public. The official told CNN that Hagel continues to support the Pentagon's plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels.

Which signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS over a month ago. And as memory serves, arming what the White House thought were "moderate Syrian rebels" is what gave birth to ISIS to begin with. Because there were not, are not, and never will be any such thing as "moderate Syrian rebels". They're all jihadists and they all hate us and want to kill us all. They're just elbowing each other to be first in line at the head-chopping block.

Darth Queeg and his mini-me sound a lot more sensible at first until you realize that they're not talking about glassing Syria entirely but merely providing air cover for the "moderate Syrian rebels" against Assad airstrikes, more or less guaranteeing the very fate - war with Syria and probably Iran and Russia - that Generalissimo Hussein, in his inadvertent wisdom, averted a year ago. Which would redound to the benefit of both ISIS and Boy Assad and another humiliating defeat for the U.S. since, after all, Barack Obama is only capable of pretending to fight any war, other than against white people, Christians, Tea Partiers, conservatives, and Republicans. Which I thought was why Commissar Hagel called his boss "chickenshit" in the first place. "In so many words".

The description of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a "chickenshit" by an anonymous U.S. official....

....that was ABSOLUTELY NOT John Kerry....

....as quoted in a U.S. magazine this week was disgraceful and damaging, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Thursday.

Netanyahu on Wednesday condemned the comment from an unnamed official....

....that was ABSOLUTELY NOT John Kerry....

....in the Atlantic, which added to tensions between his government and the Obama administration, particularly over settlement building in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem.

....which the White House ABSOLUTELY BELIEVES is "chickenshit"....

"We condemn anybody who uses language such as was used in this article....

....near an open microphone where any reporter could overhear it....

...." Kerry told an audience at the annual Washington Ideas Forum in his first comment on the issue. "It does not reflect the president, it does not reflect me, it is disgraceful, unacceptable, damaging....

....because we know where the microphones for the Oval Office taping system are located."

"I have never heard that word around me in the White House.....

....because I keep my hearing aid turned down at the office....

....I don't know who these anonymous people are who keep getting quoted....

....I thought the President told me where all the open mics were....

....but they make [my] life much more difficult," Kerry added.

And the punchline? Okay, the final punchline?

The controversy came just ahead of a White House meeting on Thursday between Susan Rice, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, and Yossi Cohen, national security adviser to Netanyahu.

Think this chickenshit was any accident? I mean, all Rice would have done is lie incessantly to NSR Cohen. Bibi got used to that chickenshit years ago.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

In 2014, Doug made appearances on Fox and Friends a couple times, Hannity on Fox News Channel twice, The Rick Amato Show on One America News, Al Jazeera, ARD German Television, and various local television and radio news broadcasts, in connection with the demonstrations in Murrieta that turned around busloads of disease infected illegal immigrants.

Doug took the angle of a concerned citizen wishing to protect the receiving population from disease, crime and terrorism, as well as exhibiting a constitutional point of view, indicating that the issue was a case of the White House trying to force its agenda upon a locality.

On July 3rd, Doug appeared on the Rick Amato Show. He had been scheduled to be on the show a week prior for other reasons. When the Murrieta Protests erupted, the appearance on One America News became all about the Murrieta Immigration Protests. Doug was one of three members of a visiting Grassroots Panel. Video is forthcoming.

Fox and Friends first asked Doug to be on the air with them on July 4th, after a local Fox News reporter had already interviewed Doug at the protest location. Jesse Watters interviewed Doug that morning, trying to understand why, of all cities, Murrieta was chosen as the processing station for the overflow of illegal aliens being flown in from Texas. View the video HERE.

After the interview was over, while Doug was headed back to Murrieta in the car Fox News had assigned to him, a producer from Fox and Friends called him and asked if he could be on the show again, but this time with his legal immigrant wife, who was born in Mexico, and immigrated here legally as a child with her parents. Doug and Virginia were on Fox and Friends the following Monday Morning, July 7, 2014. Video HERE.

On Monday, July 7, Doug also appeared on Hannity, not as a guest, but in a clip Sean put on his show where Doug was interviewed by Fox News on July 4 (the same clip that alerted Fox and Friends about Doug's involvement) during the protest on Independence Day. The clip also appeared on a number of other Fox News Channel shows. Video forthcoming.

The following day, on July 8, Doug appeared on Hannity again, but this time as a guest to battle wits with an unarmed opponent who supports illegal immigration, Enrique Morones. As you can see, the wind was having its way with Doug's hair. See the video HERE.

Al Jazeera America television asked Doug to be on the air on July 9. The interview was confrontational, but Doug stuck to his main points regarding his wife being a legal immigrant and how illegal immigration is opening the door wide open at the border, making the admittance of these law-breakers unfair to people like Virginia who has gone through the process legally. He also explained how, from a constitutional point of view, the immigration laws are in place to protect the receiving population and Doug's participation was primarily regarding the problem of incoming diseases, and the potential of criminals and terrorists crossing the border unimpeded. Video is forthcoming.

The bad news for the New Orleans Saints? They got off to a horrific start in 2014, mainly on the "strength" of a defense that, compared to last year, is performing at a level that would cast the term "underachieving" to unimagined depths of euphemization.

The good news for the New Orleans Saints? They play in the NFC South, a division in which no team currently has a winning record, and no other team's defense is even as good as that of the Saints.

The best news for the New Orleans Saints? They're playing the Carolina Panthers, a team so pathetic they couldn't even beat the Champs last Sunday, while Drew Brees and company are coming off their belated breakout (and blowout) win over the Green Bay Packers.

This one won't be close, and it will be even uglier for the good fans in Charlotte.

The 2nd Amendment does not
give you the right to keep and bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from
taking away your guns. Your rights are
given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility. Like anything else you own, if you give away
your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an
unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can
no longer exercise those rights.

In the Washington, D.C.
v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined
that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective
right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of
participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.

During the early years of
the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists
feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal
government would become tyrannical, and take away people’s rights. Therefore, even though the Constitution in
the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority
over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of
Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an
amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on
the right to keep and bear arms.

The States have Original
Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the
writing of the Constitution. The first
seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the
authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun
rights is a State power. The 2nd
Amendment simply confirms that. The
argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States. If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the
States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?

The State constitutions, and
the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing
on the right to keep and bear arms. The
Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State
governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal
and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not
infringe on individual rights.

Complacency, then, becomes
our greatest enemy.

With freedom comes
responsibility.

Understanding that the Framers
expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that
basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical
government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on
gun rights.

In early American society
the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not
limited to, protecting one’s property, facilitating a natural right of
self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate
in an organized militia system,
deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing
insurrection, and hunting.

The right to keep and bear
arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are
important, too. The whole point of the
2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which
could include a potentially oppressive central government.

Noah Webster in his “An
Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787
articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before
a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost
every kingdom of Europe. The supreme
power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of
regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Some will argue the 2nd
Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing
of the past.

The National Guard now
serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an
unorganized militia also exists.

Title 10 of the United
States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized"
civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of
the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is
composed entirely of private individuals.

United
States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law

Chapter
13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311.
Militia: composition and classes

(a) The
militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17
years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years
of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens
of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are
members of the National Guard.

(b) The
classes of the militia are -

(1) the
organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and

(2) the
unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health,
gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from
membership in the unorganized militia.
While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United
States civilian militia does legally exist.
The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of
unorganized militia, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

McDonald
v. City of Chicago (2010)
challenged the City of Chicago’s ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the
debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.

The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald
v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment
protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that
originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is
in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of
Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd
Amendment, to the States.

The decision by the Supreme
Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void. Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States
means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and
according to the 2nd Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.” If “shall not be infringed”
applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all
persons are allowed to possess a firearm.
The words, “shall not be infringed” carries no exceptions.

The reason the 2nd Amendment
is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the
federal government. The federal
government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way,
but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the
needs and allowances of the local electorate.

The U.S. Constitution
applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.

In reference to McDonald
v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or
state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.

If we give the federal
government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what
stops them from doing the opposite later?
This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to
dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal
intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.

Breaking down the language
used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.

The 2nd Amendment begins, “A
well regulated Militia.” The
immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today’s
culture recognizes it as meaning, “A militia under the control of the
government,” or “regulated by government agencies,” or “managed by federal
law.”

All of the above definitions
are wrong.

As discussed regarding the
Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word “regulated” does not mean
“controlled or restricted by government.”
The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the
context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in
the 1828 Webster Dictionary. Webster
defined regulated as: “To put in good order.” Some historians state that the word
“regulate” in the 18th Century meant “To make regular.” The word “restrict” was not used in the 1828
definition until the third and final definition of “regulated,” revealing that
today’s most common definition was the “least used” definition during the time
of the writing of the United States Constitution.

Since “regulate” did not
mean “to control and restrict,” but instead meant “to put in good order,” that
means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.

The need to have a militia
in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War
the militia was not in good order. The
muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the
militia was tattered, and many didn’t even have shoes.

To put the militia in good order,
Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow. The authority to Congress regarding this
power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution
says, “The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming,
and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The next part of the 2nd
Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is “necessary to the
security of a free State.”

The word State, in that instance, means
“individual, autonomous, sovereign State.”
In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of
a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a
free Ohio, a free California, and so on.

“Necessary to the
security of a free State.” A militia
is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State. Security against whom? A foreign invader? Isn’t that what the standing army was
supposed to be for? Why would States
need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their
“security,” and to ensure that security is for them to remain a “free State?”

Foreign enemies were a
concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government. Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central
government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty
years.

“… can history produce an
instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not
wickedness. God forbid we should ever be
20 years without such a rebellion. The
people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented
in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such
misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. We have had 13 states
independant 11 years. There has been one
rebellion. That comes to one rebellion
in a century and a half for each state.
What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties
if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take
arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to facts, pardon and pacify them. What
signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. It is it's
natural manure.” -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13
Nov. 1787

The Declaration of
Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against
their government should it become tyrannical.
In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:

“That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government
walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms. How could it ever be logical that the right
to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very
government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first
place?

Terms:

Arms -
Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part
of a militia.

Collective
Right - Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.

Declaration
of Independence - The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen
united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July
4, 1776.

Individual
Right - Rights held by individuals within a particular group.

Organized
Militia - A well trained militia that is in good order that
operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service
by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States;
National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.

Original
Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial
power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.

Regulated - To
make regular; to put in good order.

State
Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states;
strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government
is the essence of liberty.

Unorganized
Militia - Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those
who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United
States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National
Guard or the Naval Militia.

Questions
for Discussion:

1. In your
opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?

2. If the
courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a
collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear
arms?

3. Is a militia
necessary in today’s society? Why?

4. Why did the
Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from
any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it
necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?

5. In McDonald
v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and
States. How does that open up the
opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?

The Founding Fathers feared
a centralized government with a powerful military. One of the final straws that began the road
to the American Revolution was the Quartering Act of 1765 where the colonists
became required to house and feed the British troops they despised. The Quartering Act enabled the British Empire
to exercise greater control over the populace.
It was also known as one of the Intolerable Acts.

The Quartering Act served as
a major reason for the writing of the 3rd Amendment, which reads: “No
Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent
of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Tyrannical governmental
systems use unwarranted influence through military means. To guard against the potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power, the Framer’s concerns about standing
armies became evident in the 3rd Amendment.

To help the populace protect
themselves, and be able to enforce the 3rd Amendment, in case the federal
government violated the clause, the Founding Fathers also gave us the 2nd
Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.”

The concept of a Militia
that is not a federal army is the realization that the United States will not
be one where there is a standing army
that can be used against its citizens.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives the Congress the power to raise
and support armies, but limits them to no more than two years funding.

When a military arm of a
tyrannical government can compel the citizenry to house the military machinery
of defense, a police state is present and liberty is at risk. Such was the reasoning behind the 3rd
Amendment.

Until the Revolutionary War, the American States had
no military, and the militias were populated by the colonists. The Constitution gave the U.S. Government the
authority to build a military for the defense of the union. A military establishment, in the minds of the
Founders, was a potentially dangerous thing.
The Founding Fathers desired to protect the union, but did not desire
that the American military become an authoritarian tool of a potentially
tyrannical federal government.

Terms:

Intolerable
Acts - A series of laws passed by the British Parliament against the
American Colonies in March of 1774. The
British Parliament referred to these laws as the Coercive Acts. The acts were primarily designed to punish
the colony of Massachusetts for defying British policies, and more
specifically, for the Boston Tea Party.
The Intolerable Acts caused outrage among the Americans, which led to
the calling of the First Continental Congress in September of 1774. Among the actions taken by this united
Congress was a boycott of British goods.
The Intolerable Acts were called “impolitic, unjust, and cruel,” and
included the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering
Act, the Quebec Act, and the Administration of Justice Act.

Police
State - A system where the government exercises rigid and repressive
controls through strong law enforcement or military control.

Quartering
Act of 1765 - Act passed by the British Parliament in 1765 that
stated that British troops in America would be housed in barracks and in public
houses unless and until the number of troops overwhelmed the facilities, at
which time, the troops could be housed in private commercial property, such as
inns and stable, and in uninhabited homes and barns. The quartering would be without compensation
and, in fact, owners would be required to provide soldiers with certain
necessities such as food, liquor, salt, and bedding, also without compensation.

Standing
Army - A professional permanent army composed of full-time career soldiers who
are not disbanded during times of peace.

...

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

However, if you still believe your copyright has been violated, we accept notifications of alleged copyright violations in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Note that if you materially misrepresent a claim of copyright infringement you will be liable for damages (including costsand attorney fees). We require the following information in order to respond to your request: Describe in detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon (for example, “The copyrighted work is the code that appearson http://www.example.com/thecode.html) Identify the material that you claim is infringing the copyrighted work listed in #1. Include relevant URL’s that will allow us to identify the work. Your address, telephone number,and email address. Include the following statement “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” Include thefollowing statement “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Sign the notification, type your full name, sign it electronicallyif submitted via email. Send the notification to politicalpistachio@yahoo.com. Please place in the subject line Political Pistachio Copyright Infringement.

You can Email me to bitch and complain if you so desire, as well. In the event that you are offended by my site please advise me of the offensive material by Email, and I will promptly print the Email, and then place it in my shredder to serve as kindling for my fireplace.